Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare?

Avatar

Posted: 04/02/2012 7:17 AM

How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 


    How will the Supreme Court rule on Obamacare?

  1. Poll closed on 06/02/2012
  2. Narrowly uphold the law (5-4, with Kennedy affirming): 1 vote
  3. Overwhelmingly uphold law (6-3+, Kennedy + Roberts): 0 votes
  4. Find law unconstitutional, strike down all of law (5-4): 6 votes
  5. Find individual mandate unconstitutional, only: 11 votes
  6. Overwhelmingly find law unconstitutional (6-3+): 3 votes
LAter

Go Dogs!
Biting is the easy way out.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/02/2012 8:50 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 


I think it will go down 5-4 against. It will interesting to see how Scalia spins his decision given his ruling and argument on Raich v. Gonzales.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/02/2012 11:20 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



toadlife wrote: I think it will go down 5-4 against. It will interesting to see how Scalia spins his decision given his ruling and argument on Raich v. Gonzales.

I think provisions will probably be found unconstitutional, but I don't really understand the grounds about separability and such.

Ford
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/02/2012 1:14 PM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 


The argument of the left is that the right believes in personal responsibility and as such should require that all be covered by insurance. If someone is not covered by insurance and gets sick, the cost is past along to all insured and tax payers. The left then adds that young people (who they acknowledge typically don't get sick and don't use the health care system) must be brought in to pay for everybody else. Huh? Shift the cost to those who don't use the system? This is basically the same thing as social security with a middleman (the insurance companies) in the middle taking their piece. Either leave the system alone, make offering health insurance illegal, or make it a public program funded with taxes. The later two are not really options, so leave it alone.

I really liked the questioning related to the government requiring burial insurance as the cost gets shifted to either the dead persons estate, a family member or friend or the state. Why can't that be the next required insurance mandated by congress. Where will the madness stop?
LAter

Go Dogs!
Biting is the easy way out.

Last edited 04/02/2012 1:15 PM by CaliforniaStateBulldogs

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/02/2012 1:36 PM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



CaliforniaStateBulldogs wrote: The argument of the left is that the right believes in personal responsibility and as such should require that all be covered by insurance. If someone is not covered by insurance and gets sick, the cost is past along to all insured and tax payers. The left then adds that young people (who they acknowledge typically don't get sick and don't use the health care system) must be brought in to pay for everybody else. Huh? Shift the cost to those who don't use the system? This is basically the same thing as social security with a middleman (the insurance companies) in the middle taking their piece. Either leave the system alone, make offering health insurance illegal, or make it a public program funded with taxes. The later two are not really options, so leave it alone.

I agree that those are the philosophical questions, but I don't know if those are the legal/Constitutional issues.

Personally, I think will end up with a single payer system similar to the Canadian model in which each state has it's own system.

Ford
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/02/2012 2:11 PM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



CaliforniaStateBulldogs wrote: The argument of the left is that the right believes in personal responsibility and as such should require that all be covered by insurance. If someone is not covered by insurance and gets sick, the cost is past along to all insured and tax payers. The left then adds that young people (who they acknowledge typically don't get sick and don't use the health care system) must be brought in to pay for everybody else.

This was originally the Republican plan for health reform, so what does it say about Republicans that they now universally think that it is unconstitutional?

I really liked the questioning related to the government requiring burial insurance as the cost gets shifted to either the dead persons estate, a family member or friend or the state. Why can't that be the next required insurance mandated by congress.

It would be an apt comparison if
burial costs were harming our economy the way health care costs are.

Last edited 04/02/2012 2:47 PM by toadlife

Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/02/2012 2:15 PM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



CoachFord wrote:


Personally, I think will end up with a single payer system similar to the Canadian model in which each state has it's own system.

Agreed. Vermont is already implementing single payer as we speak.   They will probably become the U.S. equivalent of Saskatchewan in regards to health care reform.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/02/2012 8:33 PM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 


It was a stalking horse, not a real proposal by Republicans (some looked at it as a way to fill their election campaign coffers). The reality is that there are millions of Americans who can not afford or would choose not to afford the insurance premiums throughout the year as mandated by the law. What's Obama going to do? Fine people who don't have money? Lien their income? Jail them? What army is going to do this? The IRS? The Feds are not going to do this, so that means they will eventually wash their hands of it and pass most of it to the states as it does with all their ridiculous programs.

The Canadian system is even more broke than is advertised. Canadians don't complain about waiting months for basic services we receive same day because they have never known any better. Something is better than nothing they figure.

The reality is that the insurance model is bankrupt. There are too many middlemen involved. One person will require $0.00 from the system, others $millions. How is that fair? The only way to cut the cost is to eliminate insurance all together. If the Feds did this, costs would drop like a rock. It would become a more professional services industry, probably charged out at 10 to 15 minute increments with a significant overhead. I like the Kaiser Permanente model, where the hospital, all employees are under the same system. They can manage and control costs.

---------------------------------------------
--- toadlife wrote:


CaliforniaStateBulldogs wrote: The argument of the left is that the right believes in personal responsibility and as such should require that all be covered by insurance. If someone is not covered by insurance and gets sick, the cost is past along to all insured and tax payers. The left then adds that young people (who they acknowledge typically don't get sick and don't use the health care system) must be brought in to pay for everybody else.
N
This was originally the Republican plan for health reform, so what does it say about Republicans that they now universally think that it is unconstitutional?

I really liked the questioning related to the government requiring burial insurance as the cost gets shifted to either the dead persons estate, a family member or friend or the state. Why can't that be the next required insurance mandated by congress.

It would be an apt comparison if
burial costs were harming our economy the way health care costs are.


---------------------------------------------
LAter

Go Dogs!
Biting is the easy way out.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/04/2012 6:56 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



toadlife wrote: I think it will go down 5-4 against. It will interesting to see how Scalia spins his decision given his ruling and argument on Raich v. Gonzales.

He will differentiate the facts just like all justices and judges do on a regular basis,
"I am convinced that every man of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground." Churchill
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/04/2012 9:44 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 


I believe he differentiated the facts during the oral arguments......
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/05/2012 8:36 PM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 


I personally know several people who are citizens of Canada and have lived in the U.S. for an extended period of time. Despite it's flaws, they all prefer the Canadian system. The horror stories about Canadian health care as told by the right here are mostly gross exaggerations.

The reality is that there are millions of Americans who can not afford or would choose not to afford the insurance premiums throughout the year as mandated by the law.

This simply isn't true. Under the health care refvorm law, those who cannot afford health insurance get help from the federal government. Those majking up to 70K a year are eligible for subsidies to help in purchase health insurance
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/05/2012 8:42 PM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



RaisinsofWrath wrote: I believe he differentiated the facts during the oral arguments......
During the oral arguments Scalia made no mention of the ruling that I referred to. Instead he brought up several right wing talking points including the "corn-husker kickback" which was not even a part of the law.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/06/2012 5:22 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



toadlife wrote:
RaisinsofWrath wrote: I believe he differentiated the facts during the oral arguments......
During the oral arguments Scalia made no mention of the ruling that I referred to. Instead he brought up several right wing talking points including the "corn-husker kickback" which was not even a part of the law.

Are you sure, like the legislators and president who pushed this thru, I doubt the supremes will read it.  I didn't read it, I doubt you read it, so who really knows if it is in the bill?

Ask Vic

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/06/2012 9:30 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



toadlife wrote:
RaisinsofWrath wrote: I believe he differentiated the facts during the oral arguments......
During the oral arguments Scalia made no mention of the ruling that I referred to. Instead he brought up several right wing talking points including the "corn-husker kickback" which was not even a part of the law.
Must'a went right by ya.............. explore below,..... @ the risk of opening your mind to the truth......

LINK

JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That’s — it’s both “Necessary and Proper.” What you just said addresses what’s necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we’ve held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper, because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.

 

The argument here is that this also is — may be necessary, but it’s not proper, because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a a government that has all powers; that it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that’s what all this questioning has been about. What — what is left? If the government can do this, what — what else can it not do?

 

GENERAL VERRILLI: This does not violate the norm of proper as this Court articulated it in Printz or in New York because it does not interfere with the States as sovereigns. This is a regulation that — this is a regulation -­

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: No, that wasn’t my point. That is not the only constitutional principle that exists.

 

GENERAL VERRILLI: But it -­

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government.

Scalia makes the key points that 1) a federal law must be both “necessary” and “proper” to be authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause, and (2) a statute cannot be proper if the legal rationale for it would justify nearly unlimited federal power. These are exactly the arguments that we advanced in the amicus brief on this very issue that I wrote on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation and a group of constitutional law scholars.

 

I’m not saying that Scalia necessarily got the argument from us, or even that he read the brief. But whatever led him to take up this point, I’m very happy that he raised it. It is the key weakness in the federal government’s Necessary and Proper Clause argument, which is otherwise fairly strong – a weakness that the federal government almost completely ignored in their Petitioner’s brief for the Supreme Court. The federal government has tried to turn the Necessary and Proper Clause into a mere “necessary clause.” But, if Scalia’s views are any indication, the Supreme Court majority doesn’t seem to be buying.

 

As I explain in the amicus brief (pp. 28-29), this point also enables Scalia to distinguish his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, which many defenders of the mandate have been relying on. Raich did not address the issue of propriety. And in his concurring opinion in that case, Scalia emphasized (as he had in previous opinions) that “proper” is an independent limit on congressional power under the Clause, separate from necessity.

.................................................. ...


ALSO... MORE... IF Yer really, actually, interested..... in the differences.....

LINK

Liberals claim that to strike down Obamacare would run counter to decades of Supreme Court precedent about the scope of the congressional power to regulate commerce among the states. Conservatives, while unenthusiastic at best about the precedents, argue that to affirm Obamacare would go beyond them. So how should this case be distinguished from those precedents?

 

Michael Greve’s new book The Upside-Down Constitution, which I recently reviewed for NR, provides a compelling answer: Unlike the governmental actions at issue in those previous cases, this one involves a commandeering of individuals that cannot be considered “proper” under the Constitution. His argument is that most of the cases we file under the heading of the “commerce clause” would better be analyzed as “necessary and proper clause” cases. He begins with Gonzales v. Raich, a 2005 case affirming the power of Congress to prohibit the cultivation and possession of marijuana even for non-commercial distribution within a state.

Justice Scalia concurred in that result, which has led people who have not read the opinion closely to assume he might vote to uphold Obamacare. Writes Greve:

Justice Scalia observed that purely local, noncommercial activities, aggregated or not, cannot possibly be interstate commerce. The question is whether the federal regulation of those activities is necessary and proper to the regulation of that commerce. . . . The central inquiry . . . is whether the federal regulation of some activity, regardless of its “economic” or purely in-state nature, is nonetheless “necessary and proper” to the regulation of commerce among the several states. Each part of that inquiry has, or should have, independent meaning.

Greve then quickly summarizes the implications of this approach.

Wickard, despite its preposterous analysis, was rightly decided: grant Congress the power to limit the interstate supply of wheat and other commodities, and the power to suppress local evasion follows directly, albeit depressingly. On the limiting side, neither the Gun Free School Zones Act in Lopez nor the civil remedies provision at issue in Morrison was plausibly related, let alone necessary, to anything having to do with interstate commerce. Thus, even on very deferential judicial premises, the decisions were right. Raich turns out to be a hard case: is the prohibition against the mere possession of marijuana — neither commerce nor interstate — nonetheless “necessary” to a legitimate Commerce Clause objective and a set of interstate transactions? Plainly, Congress may suppress the shipment of marijuana and other drugs into states that do not want them. But the effect of local marijuana cultivation and consumption, under state-imposed restrictions, may be sufficiently remote to warrant the inference that the federal prohibition was simply targeted at suppressing policy competition among states (which differ greatly with respect to their “medical marijuana” policies). Justice Scalia deferred to the judgment of Congress; Justice Thomas believed not a word of it and therefore dissented. Reasonable minds will differ about the outcome and the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny, but at least they will differ over the right question.

But necessity is not the end of the analysis. Assuming that the individual mandate in Obamacare is “necessary” for carrying into execution the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states, is it “proper”? The structure of the Constitution suggests a negative answer.

Federal laws generally presuppose some affirmative private act as a predicate for compelling further private actions; and the constitutional provisions that suggest a federal authority to “commandeer” private parties are few, institutionally cabined, and calculated to ensure the operation of the government’s own institutions (such as the armed forces and the jury system) — not, as under [Obamacare], to protect the profitability of private corporations. The form in which the government exercises its authority counts a great deal in the “proper” analysis.

The parallel that jumps out is to Printz v. United States, the 1997 case in which the Court — with Justice Scalia writing for the majority — held that the federal government may not commandeer the states, as provisions of the Brady Act, a gun-control law, had attempted to do. In this case the Court found that the constitutional structure implied the impropriety of congressional means of imposing its will.

 

Nor do the parallels end there. As has often been observed of the individual mandate, Congress had alternative means of achieving its end. (Congress could, for example, condition states’ receipt of federal funds on their cooperation in the gun-registration scheme.) The Constitution prohibits the states from doing many things, but only allows Congress to issue affirmative commands to the states in specified instances. This pattern implies the presumptive impropriety of additional commands.

 

The apparent point is to ensure, to the extent any constitution reasonably can, accountability. The constitutional baseline is that the federal government should not be able to blame the failure of its regulatory schemes on poor implementation by the states, and states should not be able to blame their administrative failures on unrealistic demands by the federal government. The Constitution cannot prevent governments from bargaining around this baseline to frustrate this goal, but it can force some transparency on the process.

 

In limiting commands from the federal government to individuals, the Constitution serves similar purposes. Congress cannot keep the costs of its ideas for health-care policy off the budget by simply ordering individuals to pick them up. Liberals have noted the supposed irony of the fact that a single-payer program would survive the constitutional scrutiny now being brought to bear on the mandate. The constitutional rule at issue nonetheless limits government by forcing Congress to confront the costs of any such scheme.

 

In this context Akhil Amar’s recent argument for the constitutionality of Obamacare can be seen to miss the point. Amar notes that the Militia Act of 1792 forced individuals to procure arms. Amar rather oddly assumes that the act was passed pursuant to the Second Amendment’s stipulation that the militia be “well regulated”; therefore a command can be a proper regulation. In actuality (as Adam White points out) the act was passed pursuant to Congress’s Article I power to call forth, arm, and organize the militia. And the fact that the Constitution explicitly allows the government to issue affirmative commands to individuals in highly limited circumstances does not argue in favor of the proposition that it has a general power to issue such commands; it argues against that proposition. (The militia clauses, incidentally, further suggest the parallel between commandeering of individuals and of states, as they authorize both.)

 

In sum and in short: The constitutional line of propriety runs between proscription and prescription. None of the New Deal cases, whatever one thinks of them, moves that line. And the mandate falls on the wrong side of it.

— Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/07/2012 7:40 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/07/2012 9:29 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



kaigerugby wrote:

The Week Obama Jumped the Shark

Politifact gave Obama a false rating on saying it would be "unprecedented" to overturn this law (just one level about "pants-on-fire.)  Unfortunately for the Republicans his ratings on the Truth O Meter are way ahead of all the Republicans save Ron Paul. 

Ford
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/07/2012 11:53 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 


How many congressional laws have the Supremes overturned? 0, 10's, 100's, or 1000's? Obama is a politician. His words, whether just adlibs or butchered talking points, are ignorant (i.e. political speech) banter. He's appealing to his base who favor the giveaways. When the court takes it away, he's in a position to claim victimhood, a rite of passage for liberals. He wants to be seen as the champion of lost causes. He's just working up for a good raw raw session in September in Charlotte at the Dem Convention.

---------------------------------------------
--- CoachFord wrote:


kaigerugby wrote:The Week Obama Jumped the Shark

Politifact gave Obama a false rating on saying it would be "unprecedented" to overturn this law (just one level about "pants-on-fire.)  Unfortunately for the Republicans his ratings on the Truth O Meter are way ahead of all the Republicans save Ron Paul. 

Ford

---------------------------------------------
LAter

Go Dogs!
Biting is the easy way out.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/07/2012 12:25 PM

RE: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 


I would tend to a agree with you on that point. I would hope he isn't as dumb as his statement.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/07/2012 7:15 PM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



toadlife wrote: I personally know several people who are citizens of Canada and have lived in the U.S. for an extended period of time. Despite it's flaws, they all prefer the Canadian system. The horror stories about Canadian health care as told by the right here are mostly gross exaggerations.

The reality is that there are millions of Americans who can not afford or would choose not to afford the insurance premiums throughout the year as mandated by the law.

This simply isn't true. Under the health care refvorm law, those who cannot afford health insurance get help from the federal government. Those majking up to 70K a year are eligible for subsidies to help in purchase health insurance
And I personally know a Doctor/Surgeon who is a citizen of Canada, came to the U.S., works at Visalia Medical Center because he was not making enough for the long hours he works. He stated when he wants to work free he donates his time on the Mercy Ship helping children.

 “Leadership is a matter of having people look at you and gain confidence, seeing how you react. If you're in control, they're in control.”  Tom Landry


Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/17/2012 11:05 AM

Re: How will US Supremes vote on Obamacare? 



FSRoadDog wrote:
toadlife wrote: I personally know several people who are citizens of Canada and have lived in the U.S. for an extended period of time. Despite it's flaws, they all prefer the Canadian system. The horror stories about Canadian health care as told by the right here are mostly gross exaggerations.

The reality is that there are millions of Americans who can not afford or would choose not to afford the insurance premiums throughout the year as mandated by the law.

This simply isn't true. Under the health care refvorm law, those who cannot afford health insurance get help from the federal government. Those majking up to 70K a year are eligible for subsidies to help in purchase health insurance
And I personally know a Doctor/Surgeon who is a citizen of Canada, came to the U.S., works at Visalia Medical Center because he was not making enough for the long hours he works. He stated when he wants to work free he donates his time on the Mercy Ship helping children.
Good for your friend. He is a surgeon, then that's the reason he came here. For some reason surgeons in the U.S. are paid almost twice as much as they are paid in other countries. He also could have moved to Britain and made much more money than he did in Canada, though he would have had to put up with year round Seattle weather, a food culture that views blood pudding as acceptable, so I don't blame him for coming here.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >